Total Posts:53|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Fair Share Paradox

Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2012 9:41:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
One of the most often spewed vitriol from those on the left side of the spectrum is that supposedly, the "rich have to pay their fare share."

This claim is contradictory even in its earliest purposes. Who defines what is the "fair share"? The name is tossed around loosely a lot, but when a left winger is asked to name a specific number for what a "fair share" is, they can never come up with one. People have different ideologies on what is supposedly fair.

A "fair share" implies that everybody or the majority believes that this course of action is the fairest for society and should be implemented. However, this is not the case. The parallel of ideologies between Democrat and Republican shows clearly that a supposed "fair share" really means nothing beyond Marxist propaganda.

So I turn the tables over to the leftists on this site:

What is a "fair share", who defines it, how much is it, and how is it fair?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Starcraftzzz
Posts: 487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2012 9:47:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/3/2012 9:41:49 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
What is a "fair share", who defines it, how much is it, and how is it fair?
A "fair share" would be paying the same percentage of taxes that they own of the nations wealth.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2012 9:51:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/3/2012 9:47:07 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 3/3/2012 9:41:49 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
What is a "fair share", who defines it, how much is it, and how is it fair?
A "fair share" would be paying the same percentage of taxes that they own of the nations wealth.

Is this some kind of objective basis for deciding what is fair?

You do realize that by your basis, a person who makes $1 billion dollars per year would pay .001% tax. Derp.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2012 9:58:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/3/2012 9:51:32 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 3/3/2012 9:47:07 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 3/3/2012 9:41:49 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
What is a "fair share", who defines it, how much is it, and how is it fair?
A "fair share" would be paying the same percentage of taxes that they own of the nations wealth.

Is this some kind of objective basis for deciding what is fair?

You do realize that by your basis, a person who makes $1 billion dollars per year would pay .001% tax. Derp.

Alright, I'll support this. I pay a few bucks a year and the government dies off for lack of funding. I'm with you bro.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Starcraftzzz
Posts: 487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2012 10:05:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/3/2012 9:51:32 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 3/3/2012 9:47:07 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 3/3/2012 9:41:49 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
What is a "fair share", who defines it, how much is it, and how is it fair?
A "fair share" would be paying the same percentage of taxes that they own of the nations wealth.

Is this some kind of objective basis for deciding what is fair?

You do realize that by your basis, a person who makes $1 billion dollars per year would pay .001% tax. Derp.
1) You must be a retard for not realize that there is a difference in income and wealth
2) You must be even more a retard to know what "percentage" means
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2012 10:11:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/3/2012 10:05:26 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 3/3/2012 9:51:32 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 3/3/2012 9:47:07 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 3/3/2012 9:41:49 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
What is a "fair share", who defines it, how much is it, and how is it fair?
A "fair share" would be paying the same percentage of taxes that they own of the nations wealth.

Is this some kind of objective basis for deciding what is fair?

You do realize that by your basis, a person who makes $1 billion dollars per year would pay .001% tax. Derp.
1) You must be a retard for not realize that there is a difference in income and wealth

Let's assume somebody has $1 trillion in wealth. They would pay 1% taxes.

2) You must be even more a retard to know what "percentage" means

Your sentence doesn't make sense. You're critiquing me for knowing what "percentage" is? Anyways, I do know what percentage is, thank you very much.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2012 10:13:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/3/2012 9:47:07 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 3/3/2012 9:41:49 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
What is a "fair share", who defines it, how much is it, and how is it fair?
A "fair share" would be paying the same percentage of taxes that they own of the nations wealth.

You do realize that the top 1% pay twice their 'fair share' in relation to income, don't you?
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2012 10:14:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
And before you criticize me for the difference between income and wealth, are you really suggesting we completely abolish income tax and tax net wealth? Or gross wealth?
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2012 10:16:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/3/2012 10:14:38 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
And before you criticize me for the difference between income and wealth, are you really suggesting we completely abolish income tax and tax net wealth? Or gross wealth?

Abolish taxes. Simple.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2012 10:16:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/3/2012 10:13:13 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 3/3/2012 9:47:07 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 3/3/2012 9:41:49 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
What is a "fair share", who defines it, how much is it, and how is it fair?
A "fair share" would be paying the same percentage of taxes that they own of the nations wealth.

You do realize that the top 1% pay twice their 'fair share' in relation to income, don't you?

Nope.

According to him they overpay by 3 x10^7 times.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Starcraftzzz
Posts: 487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2012 10:39:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/3/2012 10:11:16 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 3/3/2012 10:05:26 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 3/3/2012 9:51:32 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 3/3/2012 9:47:07 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 3/3/2012 9:41:49 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
What is a "fair share", who defines it, how much is it, and how is it fair?
A "fair share" would be paying the same percentage of taxes that they own of the nations wealth.

Is this some kind of objective basis for deciding what is fair?

You do realize that by your basis, a person who makes $1 billion dollars per year would pay .001% tax. Derp.
1) You must be a retard for not realize that there is a difference in income and wealth

Let's assume somebody has $1 trillion in wealth. They would pay 1% taxes.
God you are a dumbass. If they own 1% of the nations total wealth then under my proposal they would pay 1% of the total taxes
Starcraftzzz
Posts: 487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2012 10:39:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/3/2012 10:13:13 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 3/3/2012 9:47:07 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 3/3/2012 9:41:49 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
What is a "fair share", who defines it, how much is it, and how is it fair?
A "fair share" would be paying the same percentage of taxes that they own of the nations wealth.

You do realize that the top 1% pay twice their 'fair share' in relation to income, don't you?
Why is it that you right wingers are to stupid to realize that wealth is not the same as income?
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2012 10:42:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/3/2012 10:39:14 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 3/3/2012 10:11:16 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 3/3/2012 10:05:26 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 3/3/2012 9:51:32 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 3/3/2012 9:47:07 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 3/3/2012 9:41:49 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
What is a "fair share", who defines it, how much is it, and how is it fair?
A "fair share" would be paying the same percentage of taxes that they own of the nations wealth.

Is this some kind of objective basis for deciding what is fair?

You do realize that by your basis, a person who makes $1 billion dollars per year would pay .001% tax. Derp.
1) You must be a retard for not realize that there is a difference in income and wealth

Let's assume somebody has $1 trillion in wealth. They would pay 1% taxes.
God you are a dumbass. If they own 1% of the nations total wealth then under my proposal they would pay 1% of the total taxes

There's no way to determine the amount paid then. In this case, we would need to know the total amount of taxes paid by everyone in order to determine the total amount of taxes paid by each individual person.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2012 10:43:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/3/2012 10:39:14 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 3/3/2012 10:11:16 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 3/3/2012 10:05:26 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 3/3/2012 9:51:32 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 3/3/2012 9:47:07 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 3/3/2012 9:41:49 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
What is a "fair share", who defines it, how much is it, and how is it fair?
A "fair share" would be paying the same percentage of taxes that they own of the nations wealth.

Is this some kind of objective basis for deciding what is fair?

You do realize that by your basis, a person who makes $1 billion dollars per year would pay .001% tax. Derp.
1) You must be a retard for not realize that there is a difference in income and wealth

Let's assume somebody has $1 trillion in wealth. They would pay 1% taxes.
God you are a dumbass. If they own 1% of the nations total wealth then under my proposal they would pay 1% of the total taxes

if you are correct, starcraft, that's a tax cut.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2012 10:45:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/3/2012 10:39:46 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 3/3/2012 10:13:13 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 3/3/2012 9:47:07 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 3/3/2012 9:41:49 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
What is a "fair share", who defines it, how much is it, and how is it fair?
A "fair share" would be paying the same percentage of taxes that they own of the nations wealth.

You do realize that the top 1% pay twice their 'fair share' in relation to income, don't you?
Why is it that you right wingers are to stupid to realize that wealth is not the same as income?

You don't make any sense. You are saying we shouldn't tax on income, but on wealth.

Ok, Let's say I have $5 million and I've decided to retire. You're going to tax 10% of my wealth every year.

Year 1, I'm left with $4.5 million.
Year 2, I'm left with $4.05 million.

Year 3 - $3.645 million

Year 4 - $3.28 million

Year 5 - $2.952 million

Year 6 - $2.657 million. You have now taxed the same money of mine 6 times, and taken half of it.

How in the world do you want to tax wealth? No matter what percentage, you are just taxing the same money over and over every year. You are penalizing financial responsibility, investment, and saving.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2012 10:53:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Heh, I'm a little drunk right now but this seems to be a broader wittgensteinian critique that ties not just to "fair share" but to virtually every word in the english language. LK seems to be claiming that "fair share" is a meaningless term, and that there is no platonic form or essence that it ties back to. The same could be charged with every term, I'm curious as to whether LK accepts this position.

I am very drunk right now and could come to regret this post upon further examination. As of now I think my interpretation is right but I don't expect many of you to know who the f*ck Wittgenstein is.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2012 10:54:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/3/2012 10:53:14 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Heh, I'm a little drunk right now but this seems to be a broader wittgensteinian critique that ties not just to "fair share" but to virtually every word in the english language. LK seems to be claiming that "fair share" is a meaningless term, and that there is no platonic form or essence that it ties back to. The same could be charged with every term, I'm curious as to whether LK accepts this position.

I am very drunk right now and could come to regret this post upon further examination. As of now I think my interpretation is right but I don't expect many of you to know who the f*ck Wittgenstein is.

+5
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2012 10:56:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/3/2012 10:53:14 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Heh, I'm a little drunk right now but this seems to be a broader wittgensteinian critique that ties not just to "fair share" but to virtually every word in the english language. LK seems to be claiming that "fair share" is a meaningless term, and that there is no platonic form or essence that it ties back to. The same could be charged with every term, I'm curious as to whether LK accepts this position.

I am very drunk right now and could come to regret this post upon further examination. As of now I think my interpretation is right but I don't expect many of you to know who the f*ck Wittgenstein is.

I love you.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2012 10:59:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/3/2012 10:53:14 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Heh, I'm a little drunk right now but this seems to be a broader wittgensteinian critique that ties not just to "fair share" but to virtually every word in the english language. LK seems to be claiming that "fair share" is a meaningless term, and that there is no platonic form or essence that it ties back to. The same could be charged with every term, I'm curious as to whether LK accepts this position.

I am very drunk right now and could come to regret this post upon further examination. As of now I think my interpretation is right but I don't expect many of you to know who the f*ck Wittgenstein is.

No. The majority of words are have one objective concrete definition. In other words, to use them for another meaning would be absolutely absurd.

"Fair share" on the other hand is a loosely tossed around subjective term that really has no meaning when looked at from an objective basis.

The same can be said for a few words, but the majority have concrete objective definitions.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Starcraftzzz
Posts: 487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2012 11:02:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/3/2012 10:42:08 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 3/3/2012 10:39:14 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 3/3/2012 10:11:16 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 3/3/2012 10:05:26 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 3/3/2012 9:51:32 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 3/3/2012 9:47:07 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 3/3/2012 9:41:49 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
What is a "fair share", who defines it, how much is it, and how is it fair?
A "fair share" would be paying the same percentage of taxes that they own of the nations wealth.

Is this some kind of objective basis for deciding what is fair?

You do realize that by your basis, a person who makes $1 billion dollars per year would pay .001% tax. Derp.
1) You must be a retard for not realize that there is a difference in income and wealth

Let's assume somebody has $1 trillion in wealth. They would pay 1% taxes.
God you are a dumbass. If they own 1% of the nations total wealth then under my proposal they would pay 1% of the total taxes

There's no way to determine the amount paid then. In this case, we would need to know the total amount of taxes paid by everyone in order to determine the total amount of taxes paid by each individual person.
Are you really so retarded that don't know how much taxes are paid in a year?
Starcraftzzz
Posts: 487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2012 11:03:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/3/2012 10:43:03 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 3/3/2012 10:39:14 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 3/3/2012 10:11:16 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 3/3/2012 10:05:26 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 3/3/2012 9:51:32 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 3/3/2012 9:47:07 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 3/3/2012 9:41:49 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
What is a "fair share", who defines it, how much is it, and how is it fair?
A "fair share" would be paying the same percentage of taxes that they own of the nations wealth.

Is this some kind of objective basis for deciding what is fair?

You do realize that by your basis, a person who makes $1 billion dollars per year would pay .001% tax. Derp.
1) You must be a retard for not realize that there is a difference in income and wealth

Let's assume somebody has $1 trillion in wealth. They would pay 1% taxes.
God you are a dumbass. If they own 1% of the nations total wealth then under my proposal they would pay 1% of the total taxes

if you are correct, starcraft, that's a tax cut

Yes it is a tax cut for poor and middle class families and a tax increase for rich people.
Starcraftzzz
Posts: 487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2012 11:05:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/3/2012 10:45:40 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 3/3/2012 10:39:46 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 3/3/2012 10:13:13 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 3/3/2012 9:47:07 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 3/3/2012 9:41:49 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
What is a "fair share", who defines it, how much is it, and how is it fair?
A "fair share" would be paying the same percentage of taxes that they own of the nations wealth.

You do realize that the top 1% pay twice their 'fair share' in relation to income, don't you?
Why is it that you right wingers are to stupid to realize that wealth is not the same as income?

You don't make any sense. You are saying we shouldn't tax on income, but on wealth.
No dumbass tax percentages should be based on wealth,hat doesn't not mean all taxes are on wealth. Why is it that republicans can't speak basic English, are you really that stupid?
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2012 11:10:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/3/2012 10:59:40 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 3/3/2012 10:53:14 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Heh, I'm a little drunk right now but this seems to be a broader wittgensteinian critique that ties not just to "fair share" but to virtually every word in the english language. LK seems to be claiming that "fair share" is a meaningless term, and that there is no platonic form or essence that it ties back to. The same could be charged with every term, I'm curious as to whether LK accepts this position.

I am very drunk right now and could come to regret this post upon further examination. As of now I think my interpretation is right but I don't expect many of you to know who the f*ck Wittgenstein is.

No. The majority of words are have one objective concrete definition. In other words, to use them for another meaning would be absolutely absurd.

"Fair share" on the other hand is a loosely tossed around subjective term that really has no meaning when looked at from an objective basis.

The same can be said for a few words, but the majority have concrete objective definitions.

How is it that you have knowledge of these essences? If the word "fair" has no essences that it ties back to, how do you know - say, the word "happiness" really means anything? I have no idea how you can draw this distinction. Accept the Wittgensteinian position or drop out. Does language map reality or does language determine reality? If you're going to say that "fairness" does not tie back to any specific essence, you must accept that line of thinking to its logical conclusion. You can't discriminate.

Alright I'm off to mack on drunk b1tches and gay dudes.
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2012 11:16:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/3/2012 11:05:29 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 3/3/2012 10:45:40 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 3/3/2012 10:39:46 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 3/3/2012 10:13:13 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 3/3/2012 9:47:07 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 3/3/2012 9:41:49 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
What is a "fair share", who defines it, how much is it, and how is it fair?
A "fair share" would be paying the same percentage of taxes that they own of the nations wealth.

You do realize that the top 1% pay twice their 'fair share' in relation to income, don't you?
Why is it that you right wingers are to stupid to realize that wealth is not the same as income?

You don't make any sense. You are saying we shouldn't tax on income, but on wealth.
No dumbass tax percentages should be based on wealth,hat doesn't not mean all taxes are on wealth. Why is it that republicans can't speak basic English, are you really that stupid?

Lol, I wouldn't criticize anyone about their English starcraft.

",hat doesn't not mean all taxes are on wealth."

How are you going to calculate each individual person's wealth to get their tax percentage. Every single American would have to be audited every year to have all of their assets priced, all audits would have to be finalized, and percentages could be handed out.

Also, your method of taxation would encourage people to live in as much debt as possible, as a person with a mortgage would pay less tax than a person who owns their house.

Responsible people don't purchase on credit, but save and buy cash. You're penalizing responsibility again.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2012 11:24:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/3/2012 9:47:07 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 3/3/2012 9:41:49 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
What is a "fair share", who defines it, how much is it, and how is it fair?
A "fair share" would be paying the same percentage of taxes that they own of the nations wealth.
You didn't answer 'how is it fair.' I can say that you should give all your clothes to poor people and only wear underwear because that's fair share. It doesn't explain how it is fair share. Try getting your facts straight.

Furthermore, I think you should do us all two favors here: One is to name the nonexistent, utopian fantasy land where taking all the money from the rich and just spreading it around has created massive jobs and boosted the economy. The other favor you could do us all is to remain silent if you have nothing proper to say.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2012 11:30:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/3/2012 10:13:13 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 3/3/2012 9:47:07 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 3/3/2012 9:41:49 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
What is a "fair share", who defines it, how much is it, and how is it fair?
A "fair share" would be paying the same percentage of taxes that they own of the nations wealth.

You do realize that the top 1% pay twice their 'fair share' in relation to income, don't you?
Not only that, but they also create jobs and invest heavily in anything related to the economy. And they often have much better ways of spreading their wealth voluntarily than giving it to the government. Take Bill Gates and his wife as an example. Their philanthropic work is historically memorable, and with all the wealth they have, they plan on using it to improve the world so much that only 1% or less will be left for themselves.

If they gave that 99% of the money to the government, it would go to overspent medical care, fighting drug crimes, etc. All of that is useless compared to what Bill and Melinda Gates spend their money on.

But it's not enough for the socialists.
Starcraftzzz
Posts: 487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2012 11:39:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/3/2012 11:16:51 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
How are you going to calculate each individual person's wealth to get their tax percentage.
Possibly the same way that it is already done...

At 3/3/2012 11:16:51 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
Every single American would have to be audited every year to have all of their assets priced, all audits would have to be finalized, and percentages could be handed out.
Its already done each year... dipshit

At 3/3/2012 11:16:51 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
Also, your method of taxation would encourage people to live in as much debt as possible, as a person with a mortgage would pay less tax than a person who owns their house.
Are you really so stupid that you think owning a mortgags means you own nothing?

At 3/3/2012 11:16:51 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
Responsible people don't purchase on credit, but save and buy cash. You're penalizing responsibility again.
Um that means acording to you the private sector is not responsible considering it has 45trillion debts
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2012 11:46:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/3/2012 11:39:09 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 3/3/2012 11:16:51 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
How are you going to calculate each individual person's wealth to get their tax percentage.
Possibly the same way that it is already done...

Uh... right.

Good answer.

At 3/3/2012 11:16:51 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
Every single American would have to be audited every year to have all of their assets priced, all audits would have to be finalized, and percentages could be handed out.
Its already done each year... dipshit

Really? Link please, I want to see what I'm worth.

At 3/3/2012 11:16:51 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
Also, your method of taxation would encourage people to live in as much debt as possible, as a person with a mortgage would pay less tax than a person who owns their house.
Are you really so stupid that you think owning a mortgags means you own nothing?

If you have a $250,000 mortgage on a $250,000 house, then your net is $0. The more you waste on interest, the less net wealth you have, and the less taxes you would pay.

Can you understand that, or do I have to use smaller words?

At 3/3/2012 11:16:51 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
Responsible people don't purchase on credit, but save and buy cash. You're penalizing responsibility again.
Um that means acording to you the private sector is not responsible considering it has 45trillion debts

Nope, not really. If America was responsible with money, we wouldn't have had such a hard time in the recent problems.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Starcraftzzz
Posts: 487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2012 11:47:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/3/2012 11:24:49 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 3/3/2012 9:47:07 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 3/3/2012 9:41:49 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
What is a "fair share", who defines it, how much is it, and how is it fair?
A "fair share" would be paying the same percentage of taxes that they own of the nations wealth.
You didn't answer 'how is it fair.' I can say that you should give all your clothes to poor people and only wear underwear because that's fair share. It doesn't explain how it is fair share. Try getting your facts straight.
Paying the same amount of taxes as you own of the country seems fair; what is unfair about paying the same amount in taxing to a nation that you own of it?

At 3/3/2012 11:24:49 PM, Mirza wrote:
Furthermore, I think you should do us all two favors here: One is to name the nonexistent, utopian fantasy land where taking all the money from the rich and just spreading it around has created massive jobs and boosted the economy.
Only a dipshit like you think paying the same percentage of taxes that you own of the total wealth is paying everything.
Second income/wealth inequality results in lower economic growth.
http://www.imf.org...
^The success of the Asian Tigers can be attributed to a good primary education system and low income inequality.

http://www.ijeronline.com...
^Regressional statistical models and empirical evidence form several studies conclude that increases in income inequality lower GDP growth. Partly due to an inability for the larger poorer population from being able to invest

http://motherjones.com...
^Empirical study looking at Asia, and Latin America finds that upticks in income inequality resulted in less GPD growth. This can be partly explained by an increase in debt/speculative economic growth rather than income/demand growth.
^A 10% decrease in inequality results in a 50% longer growth spell

http://www.imf.org...
^IMF Chappeons of austerity conclude that more inequality leads to less sustained growth

^Income inequality also lowers growth because when the very wealthy increase their consumption it', on goods that are pure luxury instead of goods that increase wellbeing. For example a poor person who sees an influx in income will more likely spend that income on healthcare, healthier food, or other goods that have investment returns, while a rich person is more likely to get jewelry, or private jets.

^Income inequality also lowers growth because when the very wealthy increase their consumption it', on goods that have productive constraints.
For example a poor person who sees an influx in income is more likely to purchase basic goods like clothes, food, or appliances whose production can be increased easily via more labor harvesting, while a rich person is more likely to buy collectable items, beach front properties, or wines from a special region all goods whose production cannot be increases purely by increases labor or harvesting.

At 3/3/2012 11:30:06 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 3/3/2012 10:13:13 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 3/3/2012 9:47:07 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 3/3/2012 9:41:49 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
What is a "fair share", who defines it, how much is it, and how is it fair?
A "fair share" would be paying the same percentage of taxes that they own of the nations wealth.

You do realize that the top 1% pay twice their 'fair share' in relation to income, don't you?
Not only that, but they also create jobs and invest heavily in anything related to the economy. And they often have much better ways of spreading their wealth voluntarily than giving it to the government. Take Bill Gates and his wife as an example. Their philanthropic work is historically memorable, and with all the wealth they have, they plan on using it to improve the world so much that only 1% or less will be left for themselves.
Rich people spend more money on alcohol and other goods that do not expand living standards, for examples they pay thousands for a white canvas painting, and hundreds for a dinner that has decent looks.

At 3/3/2012 11:30:06 PM, Mirza wrote:: If they gave that 99% of the money to the government, it would go to overspent medical care, fighting drug crimes, etc. All of that is useless compared to what Bill and Melinda Gates spend their money on.
1)The gate do not own 99% of Ameirca
2)Since when did government spending/taxes only equal health care and police?
3)So how long have you been a retard?